9.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Tychy, Poland.
10.  He is a member and an employee of a labour co-operative (spółdzielnia pracy).
11.  On 12 April 1991 he filed with the Warsaw Regional Court an action in which he requested the annulment of several resolutions adopted by the assembly of the representatives of the co-operative (walne zgromadzenie). The contested resolutions concerned the co-operative’s finances.
12.  Between 1992 and 1995, in addition to the original claim, the applicant challenged other resolutions relating to the division of the yearly profits of the co-operative.
13.  On 18 November 1992 the court heard two witnesses and ordered an expert opinion.
14.  On 14 May 1993 the applicant extended his claim.
15.  On 9 September 1993 an expert refused to prepare the opinion ordered by the court, relying on the applicant’s alleged lack of co-operation. The applicant submits that that allegation was not confirmed by the court.
16.  At the hearing held on 15 October 1993 the court summoned the applicant to submit documents that could be of relevance to that opinion.
17.  The opinion was submitted to the court in March 1994.
18.  On 3 March 1994 the applicant modified his claim.
19.  On 24 March 1994 the court issued a decision concerning the remuneration of the court expert. The decision was subsequently amended by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.
20.  On 9 May 1994 the applicant extended his claim.
21.  In a letter of 9 August 1994 the President of the Warsaw Court of Appeal admitted that the time-limit for preparing the expert opinion had not been observed by the expert and that there had been periods of inactivity on the part of the Regional Court. On 10 October 1994 the court refused the applicant’s request for exemption from court costs. On 13 December 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
22.  On 21 October 1994 and 4 April 1995 the applicant modified his claim.
23.  According to the Government, on 19 May 1995 the court held a hearing. The applicant submits that it was adjourned because the defendant had not been duly summoned.
24.  On 23 May 1995 the court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent request for exemption from court costs. On 3 October 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended in part that decision.
25.  On 7 February 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing.
26.  On 21 March and 1 July 1996 the applicant extended his claim.
27.  The Government submit that the hearing scheduled for 4 December 1996 was adjourned, as the parties considered reaching a settlement. The applicant states that the court itself suggested the settlement of the case and gave the parties a time-limit to start negotiations. On 22 January 1997 the defendant informed the court that no settlement had been reached.
28.  On 5 November 1997 the court held another hearing.
29.  On 14 November 1997 it gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed.
30.  On 24 April 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment. It quashed a part of the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case in that part for re-examination. The applicant lodged with the Supreme Court a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
31.  On 25 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to admit that appeal.
32.  Subsequently, pursuant to the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal, some of the applicant’s claims were remitted to the Warsaw Regional Court for re-examination.
33.  On 14 January 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing.
34.  On 28 January 2002 it gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 14 May 2002 the applicant appealed.
35.  By a final judgment of 4 April 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.